παράβας. There is another passage in Aristophanes where πρὸς is to be restored instead of es : Acharn. 392. Ὡς σκηψιν ἂν ἀγὼν οὗτος οὐκ ἐσδέξεται. This Mr. B. quotes in a note upon Nub. 465. (where r. ἐπόψομαι for ὄψομαι from Suidas, v. ἆρά γε) to shew that the particle av may be joined with a future indicative, a point I shall not at present dispute, but the validity of this example to prove it. If the learned critic had looked into any of the three first editions of Suidas, v. Σίσυφος, or P. Leopard. Emendat. xiii. 8. he would have found it thus quoted, Ως σκηψιν ἀγὼν οὗτος οὐ προσδέξεται, which is the true reading, changing only ἀγὼν into ἀγων, or, as Mr. Brunck would write it, ωγών. Eccles. 701. Τοῖς δ ̓ εὐπρεπέσιν γ' ἀκολουθοῦντες. γε is of the editor's insertion. Read Τοῖς εὐπρεπέσιν δ'.

Acharn. 18. Οὕτως ἐδήχθην ὑπὸ κονίας γε τὰς ὀφρύς. Ας the penultima of κονίας may be made long, vid. Lysistr. 470. the ye may be safely ejected on the authority of the scholiast and the first editions of Suidas, v. ῥύπτομαι.

Αν. 1478. Τοῦτο μέν γε ἦρος αἰεὶ—Mr. B. is not quite satisfied with this verse, and therefore proposes Τοῦτο μέντ ̓ ἄρ The common reading is Τοῦτο μὲν ἦρος αἰεὶ—read, Τοῦτο τοῦ μὲν ἦρος, which answers to what follows, Τοῦ δὲ χειμῶνος.

Thesmoph. 225. Οὐ γὰρ, μὰ τὴν Δήμητρά γ', ἐνταυθοῖ μενω. The particle is here of no force, nor is it in the earlier editions, at least it is not in the Basil. 1532. There can scarcely be a doubt, I think, but we must read, Οὐ γὰρ, μὰ τὴν Δήμη τρ ̓, ἔτ ̓ ἐνταυθοῖ μενω, to any one who will consult Nub. 814. Vesp. 1442. Αν. 1935. I shall quote the middle example. Οι τοι, μὰ τὴν Δήμητρ ̓, ἔτ ̓ ἐνταυθοῖ μενεῖς. Το shew of what signal use it is sometimes to compare an author with himself, I will give another example: Thesmoph. 630. Φέρ' ίδω, τί πρῶτον ἦν; ἐπίνομεν. Μr. B. has aptly quoted Nub. 787. Φέρ ̓ ἴδω, τί μέντοι πρῶτον ἦν; τί πρῶτον ἦν ; but, what is surprising, did not see that the verse in question was to be amended thus : Φέρ' ἴδω, τί μέντοι πρῶτον ἦν ; as it is quoted by Suidas, v. προπίνει.

Ibid. 443. Ολίγων ἕνεκά γ ̓ αὐτὴ παρῆλθον ῥημάτων. Why does Mr. B. follow that bardus, stipes, fungus, &c. Bergler with his γε? Why not ἕνεκα καὐτὴ— Lysistr. 82. Γυμνάδδομαί γε καὶ ποτὶ πυγὰν ἄλλομαι. Mr. B. reads γα Laconice. should prefer Γυμνάδδομαί τε as it is quoted by Eustathius, p. 1570.

Ι

Mr. B. sometimes quits the editions, at least those which I have, to wit, Aldus, Basil. 1532. and Kuster, without giving his reader notice, as for instance, Nub. 826. 1302. Ran. 320. 374. 1406. Probably he does this on the authority of MSS. (perhaps of other edd.) but such variations ought to be accounted for in the notes.

He sometimes erroneously follows Kuster's edition; as e. g. Plut. 197. "Η φησιν οὐ βιωτὸν αὐτῷ τὸν βίον. In the preceding editions it is thus ; "Η φησιν οὐκ εἶναι βιωτὸν αὐτῷ τὸν βίον, where αὐτῷ not είναι ought to have been omitted.

Nub. 1329. ol' for oio', from Kuster.

Eq. 787. Τοῦτό γε τουργον ἀληθῶς ἐστίν.—In Aldus, Τοῦτό γέ σον τουργον ἀληθῶς—read, Τοῦτό γέ τοι σου τοῦργον aλnows-vide infra 1054.

Mr. Brunck generally shews a great respect for Dawes, and follows his emendations; but I think he sometimes rejects them without reason, and sometimes does not give them all the support they might have; e. g. the emendation on Acharn. 271. is confirmed by Suidas, v. Aauaxwv, that on Pac. 188. by Suidas, v. μiapoi. Of the first I shall give but one instance. Plut. 392. as a MS. has Totov, it ought to have been inserted in the text. The assertion of Mr. B.'s that there are an hundred exceptions, is rash; I do not believe there are six. I remember one in the Rhesus, but easily to be altered. The verse from the Phoenissæ is no proof at all; that from the Bacchæ very little; in the example from the Acharn. 963. read 'O TOîos Ovтos Aáμaxos— ; v. Nub. 1970. Τὰ ποῖα ταῦτα χρήμαθ'; so far from Ο ποῖος not being admissible here, it is almost necessary, on account of the apodosis, 'O devos,-I will give two instances of Aristophanes's exactness in this particular. Ran. 1200. 'Aπо λnкvliov τοὺς σοὺς προλόγους διαφθερώ. so a MS. has it; rightly, as appears from the next verse, Ἀπὸ ληκυθίου σὺ τοὺς ἐμούς; Aves 1419. Οδὶ πάρεστιν· ἀλλ ̓ ὅτου χρὴ, δεῖ λέγειν. Πτερῶν, πTерwv dei. It is plain, that in the first verse we must read ὅπου δεῖ, χρὴ λέγειν, not only for the reason above given, but also because Xp never governs a genitive case in the Attic poets. The only example, I believe, that can be produced to the contrary, is Euripides Orest. 667. Ti xpη pixwv; but that is to be altered into dei piwv on the authority of Plutarch. Op. Mor. p. 68. E. Aristotl. Ethic. ix. 9.

Eq. 400. γενοίμην ἓν Κρατίνου κώδιον.

I must question

whether this can signify una de pellibus Cratini. L. Bos's emendation ἐν Κρατίνου (Animadv. p. 8.) seems to me to admit of no doubt.

Ib. 456. Mr. B. seems somewhat uncertain about the word κολᾷ. There is no reason for change. The Attics only use the middle future of this verb. κολωμένους ought to have been restored, Vesp. 244. instead of κολουμένους, which cannot possibly come from κολούω, or indeed any other word. Theopompus apud Suidam v. Αττις. Κολάσομαί γε σὲ, Καὶ τὸν σὸν Αττιν.

Thesm. 149. Χρὴ τὸν ποιητὴν ἄνδρα πρὸς τὰ δράματα when ἀνὴρ is joined with a substantive, it is not, I believe, capable of the article. The τὸν is, I believe, the insertion of a later editor, without any authority; I would therefore read, Χρὴ γὰρ ποιητὴν—which connects better with the preceding

verses.

In so long a work, it is impossible but some little inaccuracies, respecting the niceties of metre, must escape an editor, however diligent or sagacious.

Εq. 569. Κοὐδεὶς οὐδὲ πώποτ' αὐτῶν.—It is astonishing that Mr. Brunck should let the spondee pass in the first place, and not alter it to Κούτις.

Ibid. 1256. Όπως γένωμαί σοι Φανὸς ὑπογραφεὺς δικῶν. The metre of this line is redundant (the first syllable of Φανὸς being long) though Valesius (on Harpocration, p. 228.) and D'Orville (on Chariton, p. 5.) quote it without suspicion. Amend it from Suidas, v. Φανός. Όπως ἔσομαί σοι.

Pac. 185. Τί σοί ποτ' ἐστὶ τοὔνομ' ; οὐκ ἐρεῖς ; μιαρώτατος. an iambic with seven feet. Correct it Τί σοί ποτ ̓ ἔστ' ὄνομ' ; οὐκ ἐρεῖς; as Suidas quotes it v. μιαροί. I will take this occasion to observe, that a little above, instead of Ὦ μιαρὲ καὶ τολμηρέ—We must read on the same authority Ὦ βδελυρέ, το avoid tautology: compare Ran. 465, 466.

Αν. 985. Ἀλλὰ μὴν οὐδ ̓ ἄλλο σοί πω πράγμ' ήναντιώμεθα. A spondee in the fifth place. The first editions have εναντιώμε θα, read ἐνηντιώμεθα.

Ibid. 1997. Συρακουσίῳ δὲ Κίττα· Μειδίας δ' ἐκεῖ. a cretic in the second place : read Συρακοσίῳ. Eupolis, quoted by the Scholiast, Συρακόσιος δ ̓ ἔοικεν, ἡνίκ ̓ ἂν λέγῃ Τοῖς κυνιδίοισι τοῖσιν ἐπὶ τῶν τειχέων. In Kuster's edition it is corrupted into Συρακούσιος.

Thesm. 234. Βούλει θεάσασθαι σαυτόν; εἰ δοκεῖ, φέρε. A syllable too much correct it slightly, Bouλet Deâolai.-Éccles. 369. Lysistr. 742. Q Tóтva Eixelovia-without an elision, that the first syllable in Tórva may not be made long contrary to the author's custom : Το φάρμακόν σου τὴν νόσον μείζω ποιεῖ. If any thing is to be altered, I should rather suppose, "AXX' ought to be supplied at the beginning of the verse. A similar omission has happened in the Aldine edition of Euripid. Phoeniss. 1806. and in many editions of our author, Av. 1693. Ἀλλὰ γαμικὴν χλανίδα δότω τις δευρό μοι. (ita leg. ex Schol. in v. 1565.)

The Index is a repetition of Kuster's, but very much improved and enlarged. The Latin interpretation, which the learned editor has altered and corrected in an infinity of places, is as far as I have consulted it, perspicuous and accurate. In the fragments, perhaps something more might have been done. But as I have not now either leisure or inclination to undertake a minute examination, I shall only just observe, that in the Gerytades, part of the 21st fragment is repeated in the Incerta, No. 41. where instead of ῥήματα εμβαπτόμενος, we must read ῥημά τι—έμBarróμevov from Athenæus, p. 367. and that in the 3d fragment of the Aalraλns, whoever will compare Nub. 865. 1242. will think it ought probably to be corrected thus, Η μὴν ἴσως σὺ Kataπλayńoei T xpóv. Fragm. incert. 133. is a parody of Euripides apud Plutarch. de Isid, et Osirid. p. 379. D.

SIR,

To the Editor of the MUSEUM CRITICUM.

66

MAJOR Leake, in his Researches in Greece, p. 112. gives the following etymology of a Romaic phrase, “Saμáki wpapoa, a little out of its direction; from Hellenic pápoos, region. The writer of some remarks on Major Leake's book, in the Quarterly Review, denies that pápoos signifies a region, and asserts that in point of fact it is a shawl. Mr. Leake in reply maintains his original position, and adduces from two epigrams of Phanias Φάρσος ἅμας, and φάρσος βότρυος, and four passages of

Herodotus, where he speaks of a city being divided into φάρσεα. Now the fact is, that φάρσος never does mean region, in the sense Major Leake attaches to it: but at the same time it must be acknowledged that the Reviewer is too concise and positive in his remark. The true account of the matter is as follows.

Φάρσος is properly one division, skirt, or fap of a garment, which consisted of two such divisions. Etymol. Μ. p. 175. καὶ γὰρ διαφάρους φασὶ χιτῶνας, τοὺς εἰς δύο μέρη κεχωρισμένους· καὶ φάρσος, τὸ ἀπόσχισμα τῆς ἐσθῆτος. For διαφόρους Phavorinus has διαφάρσους ; but the true reading is διφάρσους, a compound similar to δίκροσσον.

Hence it comes in the second place to be used for the section of any thing which is divided into two nearly equal parts; as in the passage of Herodotus referred to by Major Leake. ἐστὶ γὰρ δύο φάρσεα τῆς πόλιος τὸ γὰρ μέσον αὐτῆς ποταμὸς διείργει. there are two sections of the city. So in Phanias φάρσος ἄμας is the half of a mattock (see Photius v. Σκαφεῖον. Schol. Aristoph. Pac. 296. and φάρσος βότρυος is the half of a bunch of grapes a fragment; equivalent to τρύφος in the next line,

Φάρσος σοι γεραοῦ τόδε βότρυος, εἰνόδι Ερμᾶ,

Καὶ τρύφος ἰπνίτα πιαλέου φθόνος.

A bit of a greasy pancake broiled on the embers. Hesych. quoted by Major L. Φάρσος, τρύφος, κλάσμα, πτερύ γιον, ἀκρωτήριον.

And thirdly, it was used for the pinnacle of a building; but by the words πτερύγιον, ἀκρωτήριον, Hesychius meant the skirt of a garment. He has elsewhere, Πτερύγια-τὰ ἄκρα τῶν ἱματίων. But we rather believe he intends a pinnacle. Pollux VII. 121. δόμοι, πτέρυγες, φάρση. The word ἀκρωτήριον also means the ornamental figure which crowns a dome.

In none of these instances does pápoos signify a region, but simply a part, as distinguished from the whole, and therefore Mr. Leake is unquestionably wroug; nor can the Reviewer be said to be in the right; since although his remark is true as far as it goes, he should have pursued it further, and have cited the passages with which the Indexes have furnished Major Leake.

I am, Sir,

Yours, &c.